NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - First Reactions vs. Current Reactions

1219220222224225298

Comments

  • Posts: 372
    The US is a country at civil war. It's normal that some films with an mostly adult audience don't work as well in those troubled times.
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 207
    Killing off Bond would have never been a creative choice of mine. But it’s not my movie, so all I can do is determine whether it succeeded at what it set out to do rather than slam it for not conforming to my idea of what makes a Bond film.

    Yes. I may not like the idea of killing him, but if that’s the direction they chose to go and it was done well, I can’t complain.

    This is coming from someone who had a reaction of “I don’t even want to see this movie now” once they were spoiled the ending after the premiere. Of course I was still there on opening night and didn’t have an issue with it. Would I have liked if he didn’t have to die? Yes. But if they had to go that route, I think they succeeded.
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 12,242
    Zarozzor wrote: »
    Killing off Bond would have never been a creative choice of mine. But it’s not my movie, so all I can do is determine whether it succeeded at what it set out to do rather than slam it for not conforming to my idea of what makes a Bond film.

    Yes. I may not like the idea of killing him, but if that’s the direction they chose to go and it was done well, I can’t complain.

    This is coming from someone who had a reaction of “I don’t even want to see this movie now” once they were spoiled the ending after the premiere. Of course I was still there on opening night and didn’t have an issue with it. Would I have liked if he didn’t have to die? Yes. But if they had to go that route, I think they succeeded.

    In the same general boat; I was going to see it no matter what, but I did purposefully spoil that part for myself because I didn't want to be surprised by Bond dying potentially. I suspected this might be the case based on a lot of clues. It sounded terrible on paper, and though it's still not the direction I would have gone in, I've accepted it as it is. Not the ending I would prefer, but about as "not bad" for what it is as I could hope for. If someone had told me before this came out that a Bond film with Bond dying would be my #10 in my ranking of the 25, I'd laugh. But the film does so much right for me I can't help but love it.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    On that same point, I don’t want a Bond movie like MOONRAKER. That’s not at all what I want out of the film series. In spite of that, I really enjoy the flick and give it high complements for succeeding at what it set out to do.

    Same deal with STAR TREK: LOWER DECKS. It’s not at all what I wanted out of Trek, and I initially ignored it outright until friends of mine convinced me to give it a shot. And it’s now my favorite Trek series in 20 years.
  • Posts: 207
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Zarozzor wrote: »
    Killing off Bond would have never been a creative choice of mine. But it’s not my movie, so all I can do is determine whether it succeeded at what it set out to do rather than slam it for not conforming to my idea of what makes a Bond film.

    Yes. I may not like the idea of killing him, but if that’s the direction they chose to go and it was done well, I can’t complain.

    This is coming from someone who had a reaction of “I don’t even want to see this movie now” once they were spoiled the ending after the premiere. Of course I was still there on opening night and didn’t have an issue with it. Would I have liked if he didn’t have to die? Yes. But if they had to go that route, I think they succeeded.

    In the same general boat; I was going to see it no matter what, but I did purposefully spoil that part for myself because I didn't want to be surprised by Bond dying potentially. I suspected this might be the case based on a lot of clues. It sounded terrible on paper, and though it's still not the direction I would have gone in, I've accepted it as it is. Not the ending I would prefer, but about as "not bad" for what it is as I could hope for. If someone had told me before this came out that a Bond film with Bond dying would be my #10 in my ranking of the 25, I'd laugh. But the film does so much right for me I can't help but love it.
    As soon as I heard he dies, my immediate thought was “this is going right alongside DAD in the bottom tier.”

    But I’ve ranked it as high as #7 and only a low of #10 so far. I think it will move around in the 7-13 range for me as time passes, which is a job well done. I said before it came out that if it’s a top 10-15 entry I’ll be happy.
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 49

    Look , I think that is right in the short-term, but that relies, like so much of the Craig era, on the goodwill built up in the decades that preceded the Craig films. There is very little that strikes me as sophisticated or stylish about the Craig films once we get past CR, apart from a perfunctory tux scene. That the film basically tanked in the US - which remains the world's biggest consumer market - should be causing a lot more concern than it seems to on these pages.

    I think a far more interesting question is why the films fortunes differ so much between the UK, Europe and the USA.

    I have always been surprised by the success of Craig-Bond in the USA. Two countries separated by a common language still holds good in a number of area including art and the USA itself has many distinctions.

    The films feel much more european than transatlantic to me.

    Mathieu Amarlic and the other European Actors added so much texture not to mention all the actress's.

    I do not think your right about the good will that preceded Craig- Bond the reality is Daniel got a lot more bums on seats that previously were not there and people came out saying my goodness there was a real story. There is a big Craig Bond audience which functions outside of this deep fan thing just as there is with any franchise where the numbers suddenly grow beyond the core.

    Not only were the stories flatlining before Daniel the audiences were to.




  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    The notion that the movie tanked in the US is slightly wrong. Bond suffered from COVID far more than other films that benefited from a younger target. In the end Bond in the US will end up grossing only $10M less than F9. NTTD will end up being the 7th biggest film in NA this year… and SP for the record ended up 11th back in 2015.
  • echo wrote: »
    I slam it for lazy writing. Look, many Bonds have suffered from lazy writing, but usually the sheer fun factor made them enjoyable anyway. SPECTRE was stupid, but at least it was fun.

    This is a good point. Moonraker marked the nadir for me with its lazer battles, Bondola, Jaws falling in love etc. It was truly silly, yet at least it could be forgiven for being a fun ride. NTTD just left me feeling flat.

  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,481
    Maybe the US returns aren't what they hoped but given the pandemic I guess they're positive. Hopefully the producers don't feel they have to course correct and pander to the general US audience

    No offence to our American friends on the forum but I'm glad Bond doesn't pander to the US audience, the same way I'm glad something like Top Gun doesn't pander to UK audiences. They should always be what they are and allow the audience to take it or leave it

    The only minor thing that irks me when I watch Casino, is when Bond says cell phone to M at the end of the film. Every time without fail I cringe
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921

    Look , I think that is right in the short-term, but that relies, like so much of the Craig era, on the goodwill built up in the decades that preceded the Craig films. There is very little that strikes me as sophisticated or stylish about the Craig films once we get past CR, apart from a perfunctory tux scene. That the film basically tanked in the US - which remains the world's biggest consumer market - should be causing a lot more concern than it seems to on these pages.

    I think a far more interesting question is why the films fortunes differ so much between the UK, Europe and the USA.

    I have always been surprised by the success of Craig-Bond in the USA. Two countries separated by a common language still holds good in a number of area including art and the USA itself has many distinctions.

    The films feel much more european than transatlantic to me.

    Mathieu Amarlic and the other European Actors added so much texture not to mention all the actress's.

    I do not think your right about the good will that preceded Craig- Bond the reality is Daniel got a lot more bums on seats that previously were not there and people came out saying my goodness there was a real story. There is a big Craig Bond audience which functions outside of this deep fan thing just as there is with any franchise where the numbers suddenly grow beyond the core.

    Not only were the stories flatlining before Daniel the audiences were to.

    The Craig films really lost momentum once Haggis was no longer involved as a screenwriter. It's pretty clear that he contributed some of the best elements of CR and QoS (the scene on the plane with Mathis?).

    And judging by his TV background, he could have plotted a proper multifilm arc for Bond.

    (I'm aware Haggis is having a lot of legal issues (that may be real, or may be Scientology-revenge-driven). Who knows?)
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    Another thing that I saw someone mention that never clicked with me that I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on - Bond is clearly showered with the Spectre killing nanobots at the Cuba party. Would Blofeld not be included amongst those targets, thus rendering Madeleine's touching of Bond's arm redundant? I suppose they could have been programmed to just exclude Blofeld considering he's in prison.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited December 2021 Posts: 2,895
    echo wrote: »
    The Craig films really lost momentum once Haggis was no longer involved as a screenwriter. It's pretty clear that he contributed some of the best elements of CR and QoS (the scene on the plane with Mathis?).
    Haggis was clearly responsible for some of the great dialogue and deadpan gags in QOS that never came close to being matched in Craig's later films.

  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    Another thing that I saw someone mention that never clicked with me that I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on - Bond is clearly showered with the Spectre killing nanobots at the Cuba party. Would Blofeld not be included amongst those targets, thus rendering Madeleine's touching of Bond's arm redundant? I suppose they could have been programmed to just exclude Blofeld considering he's in prison.

    Yep, thought the same thing. Someone somewhere even mentioned that they specifically state in the scene at Q's house that he was included in the original DNA set, but I can't recall. It's a bit muddy, like most of the nanobots stuff, but it's not like it's a plot hole. Safin didn't know Bond would be there and Madeleine didn't touch him specifically to transmit the nanobots, I think. So he either had one type of nanobot that kills Blofeld or two. Who know, maybe the stuff Safin gave Madeleine where the exact same nanobots as the ones from Cuba, anyway. Hardly makes a difference.

    I do think it is a missed opportunity that there wasn't a scene where Bond uses the nanobots he has inside of him as a weapon, for example to take out some guys in Safin's base. Maybe it's too sci-fi, but I thought the strongest symbolism of the ending was that him being basically a living weapon made him too dangerous for the world (or him having a family made him too soft to go on like that, you decide) and him actually using the thing he finally has to die for on purpose - and not just on accident as with Blofeld - would have driven that home a bit more neatly.
    It also just could have been an unusual action sequence where Bond for some reason doesn't have a firearm, but if he gets skin contact, the other guys die.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    Another thing that I saw someone mention that never clicked with me that I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on - Bond is clearly showered with the Spectre killing nanobots at the Cuba party. Would Blofeld not be included amongst those targets, thus rendering Madeleine's touching of Bond's arm redundant? I suppose they could have been programmed to just exclude Blofeld considering he's in prison.

    Great question. I suppose they just plugged in the genetics of only the SPECTRE agents that were going to be at the party.

    But, they could have included Blofeld's DNA in that Cuba attack, and nothing would have been different, as you say. Bond touching Madeleine's arm would be redundant. It would still make sense for Safin to give the perfume to Madeleine though as he wouldn't necessarily expect Bond to meet with Blofeld along with Madeleine.
  • Posts: 1,394
    Imagine if after Tony Stark died in Endgane,at the end of the credits it said “ Tony Stark will return “.
  • Posts: 7,500
    So we have gone from "how dear they kill James Bond!" to "how dear they say James Bond will return!"? I suppose that's progress in a way... ;))
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Seeing the blasts creeping up on Bond looked like when in Star Trek III the flames were creeping up on Kirk, except Bond didn't get beamed up. :-S
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Imagine if after Tony Stark died in Endgane,at the end of the credits it said “ Tony Stark will return “.

    Fans would’ve been excited.

    Not as Bond’s ones, of course, haha.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    They should have shown Bond’s burnt corpse getting eaten by animals for good measure, especially if it angered more fans.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    They should have shown Bond’s burnt corpse getting eaten by animals for good measure, especially if it angered more fans.

    Maybe a giant squid.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    Posts: 2,161
    They should have shown Bond’s burnt corpse getting eaten by animals for good measure, especially if it angered more fans.

    It would have settled things, but personally I don't enjoy seeing any Bond fan disappointed, angered or upset about what happens in the films, whether they agree with me or not, but it is inevitable.
  • They should have shown Bond’s burnt corpse getting eaten by animals for good measure, especially if it angered more fans.

    You're so edgy!
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    edited December 2021 Posts: 2,161
    I don't think it would have bothered me any more or less, seeing the corpse, as far as the death itself is concerned. I'm put off that they went in that direction however they chose illustrate it.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    They should have shown Bond’s burnt corpse getting eaten by animals for good measure, especially if it angered more fans.

    Maybe a giant squid.

    We literally see Bond’s head get crushed in every gory detail. Madeleine then admits she never loved him. Nomi is happy that Bond is dead because the only good cis gender white heterosexual male is a dead one, especially if his balls are squashed like guacamole. It ends with the very firs cameo of Barbara Broccoli, maniacally laughing as she sets fire to photos of Cubby and Ian Fleming. Like Robert DeNiro in CAPE FEAR



  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited December 2021 Posts: 8,009
    Another thing that I saw someone mention that never clicked with me that I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on - Bond is clearly showered with the Spectre killing nanobots at the Cuba party. Would Blofeld not be included amongst those targets, thus rendering Madeleine's touching of Bond's arm redundant? I suppose they could have been programmed to just exclude Blofeld considering he's in prison.

    Great question. I suppose they just plugged in the genetics of only the SPECTRE agents that were going to be at the party.

    But, they could have included Blofeld's DNA in that Cuba attack, and nothing would have been different, as you say. Bond touching Madeleine's arm would be redundant. It would still make sense for Safin to give the perfume to Madeleine though as he wouldn't necessarily expect Bond to meet with Blofeld along with Madeleine.

    True. Still heightened the onscreen drama and tension and thus did its job.
    I do think it is a missed opportunity that there wasn't a scene where Bond uses the nanobots he has inside of him as a weapon, for example to take out some guys in Safin's base. Maybe it's too sci-fi, but I thought the strongest symbolism of the ending was that him being basically a living weapon made him too dangerous for the world (or him having a family made him too soft to go on like that, you decide) and him actually using the thing he finally has to die for on purpose - and not just on accident as with Blofeld - would have driven that home a bit more neatly.
    It also just could have been an unusual action sequence where Bond for some reason doesn't have a firearm, but if he gets skin contact, the other guys die.

    This would have been very, very sci-fi for Bond (at least Craig's Bond) but I actually love the idea of a hero taking on guys with guns armed only with a deadly sense of touch.
  • marcmarc Universal Exports
    Posts: 2,608
    Quite alright, us Canadians are pretty samey.

    Now the other fella should have The Other Fella as location.
  • goldenswissroyalegoldenswissroyale Switzerland
    Posts: 4,378
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    Imagine if after Tony Stark died in Endgane,at the end of the credits it said “ Tony Stark will return “.

    I'm pretty sure that Tony Stark will be part of a Marvel film in the not so far future. Reboot, prequel...
    But yes, it would have sounded weird to have such credits. However, I was happy to read that James Bond will return" and this disn't lower the quality of NTTD for me.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    Apples and oranges, but now with the emergence of the multi-verse being a key point in MCU, Marvel has essentially found their excuse to trot out different versions of the same characters.

    I have no doubt we’ll see Tony Stark and Steve Rogers again on the big screen. Like Bond, it’ll just get set on a different continuity. My bet is that only happens if the MCU sees a notable downslide at the box office (not accounting COVID). Once that happens, we should expect to see new reboots of those characters.

    They’re DEFINITELY going to introduce Wolverine/Logan in the near future.
  • FarewellBondFarewellBond Australia
    edited December 2021 Posts: 9
    matt_u wrote: »
    The notion that the movie tanked in the US is slightly wrong. Bond suffered from COVID far more than other films that benefited from a younger target. In the end Bond in the US will end up grossing only $10M less than F9. NTTD will end up being the 7th biggest film in NA this year… and SP for the record ended up 11th back in 2015.
    But SP faced a lot more competition than NTTD as many of the films that ordinarily would have provided competition have been held over to next year. The bottom line is that NTTD will be the 6th worst performing Bond film of all time in the US (inflation adjusted). LTK, TMWTGG, TLD, AVTAK, and OHMSS are the only films to perform worse, and it is telling that after three of these (OHMSS, AVTAK, LTK) the series moved on to a new Bond and a new direction.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,999
    Seve wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    JamesK wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    JamesK wrote: »
    How is killing him pure Fleming? I'm honestly curious, as Fleming himself never did it (though maybe he'd planned to?)

    FRWL was the closest. He wanted to give himself the option to walk away.

    Agree its close - but I don't think Fleming made it as clear in that novel as they may have done in the NTTD.

    Definitely. The film is categorical. The novel never explicitly states Bond is dead.

    The film ends with "James Bond will return"

    IMO the film is just as "categorical" that he will survive

    If you were watching the film without any outside knowledge of "internal Bond politics", which is most people, there will be likely be some confusion on that point.

    It's a contradiction the audience hasn't had to deal with before, being asked to accept that it's only one actors incarnation of Bond that is dead.

    However it's no less strange than having two Bonds at the same time back in in 1983, so I'm sure we'll all come to terms with it, either way, in time.
    matt_u wrote: »
    The notion that the movie tanked in the US is slightly wrong. Bond suffered from COVID far more than other films that benefited from a younger target. In the end Bond in the US will end up grossing only $10M less than F9. NTTD will end up being the 7th biggest film in NA this year… and SP for the record ended up 11th back in 2015.
    But SP faced a lot more competition than NTTD as many of the films that ordinarily have provided competition have been held over to next year. The bottom line is that NTTD will be the 6th worst performing Bond film of all time in the US (inflation adjusted). LTK, TMWTGG, TLD, AVTAK, AND OHMSS are the only films to perform worse, and it is telling that after three of these (OHMSS, AVTAK, LTK) the series moved on to a new Bond and a new direction.

    Why single out Bond? ALL films this year have been impacted by this pandemic. There has yet to be a billion dollar grossing film.

    So when discussions regarding NTTD’s box office are brought up, there will always be the two major points: 1) that it was effected by the pandemic, and 2) that it was still able to gross over $700 worldwide in spite of it.
Sign In or Register to comment.